|
In his commentary on Aristotle's work, De anima, the method of
St. Thomas had been philosophical, ascending progressively from
vegetative life to sense life, from sense life to intellectual life,
and finally to the principle of intellective acts, the spiritual and
immortal soul. In the Summa, on the contrary, he follows the
theological order, which first studies God, then creatures in their
relation to God. Hence, after treating of God, then creation in
general, then of angels, he now treats of man, under five headings:
|
1. The nature of the human soul.
2. The union of soul with body.
3. The faculties of the soul.
4. The acts of intelligence.
5. The production and state of the first man.
|
|
Before we follow him, let us recall that St. Thomas pursues a
golden middle way, between the Averroists and the Augustinians.
Averroes [620] maintained that human intelligence, the lowest
of all intelligences, is an immaterial form, eternal, separated from
individual man, and endowed with numeric unity. This intelligence is
both agent intellect and possible intellect. Thus human reason is
impersonal, it is the light which illumines individual souls and
assures to humanity participation in eternal truths. Hence Averroes
denies individual souls, and also personal liberty. Such was the
doctrine taught in the thirteenth century by the Latin Averroists,
Siger of Brabant and Boethius of Dacia. Against these St.
Thomas wrote a special treatise. [621] .
Siger [622] maintained that, beside the vegetativo-sense
soul, there exists indeed an intellective soul, but that this soul is
by its nature separated from the body, and comes temporarily to the
body to accomplish there its act of thought, as, so he illustrates,
the sun illuminates the waters of a lake. Thus the intellectual soul
cannot be the form of the body, for then, being the form of a material
organ, it would itself be material and therefore be intrinsically
dependent on matter. This intellectual soul is unique, for it
excludes from itself even the very principle of individuation, which is
matter. Still it is always united to human bodies, because, although
human individuals die, humanity itself is immortal, since the series
of human generations is without beginning and will never end.
[623] .
On the other hand, some pre-Thomistic theologians, notably
Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure, admitted a plurality of
substantial forms in man and also a spiritual matter in the human soul.
These theologians were seeking, unsuccessfully, to harmonize the
doctrine of St. Augustine with that of Aristotle. The multiplicity
of substantial forms did indeed emphasize St. Augustine's view about
the soul's independence of the body, but at the same time compromised
the natural unity of the human composite.
Steering between these two currents, St. Thomas maintains that the
rational soul is indeed purely spiritual, entirely without matter and
hence incorruptible, but that it is nevertheless the form of the body,
rather, the one and only form of the body, although in its
intellectual and voluntary acts it is intrinsically independent of
matter. And if in these acts it is independent, then it is
independent of the body also in its being, and, once separated from
the body which gave it individuation, it still remains individualized,
by its inseparable relation to this body rather than to any other.
Turning now to special questions, we shall continue to underline the
principles to which St. Thomas continually appeals, and which
Thomists have never ceased to defend, particularly against Scotus and
Suarez, who still preserve something of the theories held by the older
Scholasticism. Thus Scotus admits, first a materia primo prima in
every contingent substance, even in spiritual substances, and holds,
secondly, that there is in man a form of corporeity distinct from the
soul, and that, thirdly, there are in the soul three formally
distinct principles, that of the vegetative life, that of the sense
life, and that of the intellective life.
He likewise holds, against St. Thomas, that prime matter,
speaking absolutely, can exist without any form. This last thesis
reappears in Suarez who, since he rejects the real distinction between
essence and existence, goes on to admit that prime matter has its own
existence. We shall see that the principles of St. Thomas cannot be
harmonized with these positions.
|
|